4.7 Review

Rapid phenotypic methods to improve the diagnosis of bacterial bloodstream infections: meeting the challenge to reduce the time to result

Journal

CLINICAL MICROBIOLOGY AND INFECTION
Volume 24, Issue 9, Pages 935-943

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.cmi.2018.03.031

Keywords

Antimicrobial susceptibility testing; Bacterial identification; Blood culture; Bloodstream infection; Innovative methods; MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry; Phenotypic methods; Rapid methods

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Administration of appropriate antimicrobial therapy is one of the key factors in surviving bloodstream infections. Blood culture is currently the reference standard for diagnosis, but conventional practices have long turnaround times while diagnosis needs to be faster to improve patient care. Phenotypic methods offer an advantage over genotypic methods in that they can identify a wide range of taxa, detect the resistance currently expressed, and resist genetic variability in resistance detection. Aims: We aimed to discuss the wide array of phenotypic methods that have recently been developed to substantially reduce the time to result from identification to antibiotic susceptibility testing. Sources: A literature review focusing on rapid phenotypic methods for improving the diagnosis of bloodstream infection was the source. Content: Rapid phenotypic bacterial identification corresponds to Matrix-assisted laser-desorption/ionization time of flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF), and rapid antimicrobial susceptibility testing methods comprised of numerous different approaches, are considered and critically assessed. Particular attention is also paid to emerging technologies knocking at the door of routine microbiology laboratories. Finally, workflow integration of these methods is considered. (C) 2018 European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available